The Committee of the Whole (COW) met
in the evening and agreed on various draft decisions, but remaining
outstanding issues included: draft elements for a proposed decision on
the Basel Convention Regional and Coordinating Centres (BCRCCs)
(UNEP/CHW.8/CRP.5); the 2010 Strategic Plan for the Convention’s
implementation (UNEP/CHW.8/CRP.6); and the outline for an instruction
manual for the legal profession (UNEP/CHW.8/CRP.14).

The budget contact group met and
informal consultations on ship dismantling and on the Mobile Phone
Partnership Initiative (MPPI) continued throughout the day and evening.

HIGH LEVEL SEGMENT

WORLD FORUM ON E-WASTE:
Kivutha Kibwana, Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Kenya,
welcomed participants to the high-level segment, expressing hope that
the “World Forum on E-waste” would result in the Convention's effective
implementation. He described e-waste as an emerging challenge, and
lamented that many developing countries are recipients of obsolete
electronic equipment disguised as donations.

Achim Steiner, UNEP Executive
Director, chaired the high-level segment, acknowledged the growing
interest in e-waste management, and underscored the importance of
multi-stakeholder interaction. He said that the Forum’s outcome will be
measured by the extent that it can provide direction to the
international discourse on e-waste, describing the Convention as a
“regulatory opportunity in a globalized market place.”

Jesca Eriyo, Minister of State for
Environment, Uganda, highlighted the vulnerability of African countries
due to the absence of effective tracking systems, adequate legal
frameworks, law enforcement and capacity. Acknowledging the need to
“bridge the digital divide,” she called for a comprehensive action plan
targeting the most vulnerable countries, and urged developed countries
to show their commitment to phasing-out hazardous components of
electronic equipment.

Mariano Arana, Minister of State
for Environment, Uruguay, described local integrated waste management
practices in Montevideo, emphasizing the need for extended producer
responsibility and adequate infrastructure for waste management.

Bakary Kante, UNEP Director of the
Division of Environmental Law and Conventions, then chaired a panel
discussion.

Helge Wendenburg, Federal Ministry
for Environment, Nature and Nuclear Safety, Germany, welcomed the EC’s
recent relevant directives and regulations, stressed the importance of
capacity building, awareness raising and partnerships, and encouraged
the use of
BCRCCs.

Timo Mäkelä, EC, informed delegates
that 6-7 million tonnes of electronic and electrical waste is produced
annually EU-wide, saying this had prompted the EC legislation. He
pledged one million Euros to MPPI, underscoring his hope that this would
be directed at improved governance.

Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Mining Industry
Association, Japan, noted the high cost of current recycling techniques,
and stressed the need to reduce costs to ensure recycling operations are
viable.

Kirsi Sormunen, Nokia, called for
better guidelines on recycling, stressed that collection volumes at
Nokia’s take-back facilities are low, and underscored consumer
responsibility for recycling.

Adil Najam, International Institute
for Sustainable Development (IISD), challenged delegates to find new
avenues of international environmental policy under the Convention’s
umbrella to deal with e-waste.

Panel Chair Kante opened the
interactive discussion. CAMBODIA called for a global strategy on
e-waste, where developing and developed countries deal with waste
management as partners. MEXICO pointed to ongoing innovation in the
electronics industry, leading to older models becoming obsolete and
being disposed, when they could still be used and resources could be
extracted from them. MALAYSIA called upon corporations with buy-back
policies for end-of-life products to make these more public. MAURITIUS
requested awareness-raising and capacity-building in developing
countries to avoid pollution from e-waste and that producers be
responsible for disposal.

David Tkeshelashvili, Minister for
Environment Protection and Natural resources, Georgia, called for
stricter regulation for recycling companies and the design of
environmentally sustainable electronic equipment.

Stefan Wallin, State Secretary,
Finland, stressed the need to minimize e-waste generation, prevent
illegal shipments and “e-waste leakage” from regions with strict
regulations to countries where regulation and enforcement are weak.

BENIN called for international
community and developed countries support for the development of
appropriate financial mechanisms to implement the Convention’s
objectives. UGANDA called for a national public-private partnership to
provide functional technologies. TANZANIA underscored the challenge of
globalization, poverty reduction, and a vulnerable population, and
called for a funding arrangement for capacity building.

NIGERIA highlighted ways forward in
solving the e-waste problem, including developing global partnership
initiatives similar to MPPI for other technologies.

Panelists then answered questions
on: establishing incentives that encourage developing countries to
benefit from old technologies rather than disposing of them; how
governments, the private sector and civil society can work together on
e-waste; fostering capacity building in developing countries for
technology re-use; and establishing incentives for the private sector to
better manage e-waste.

Following the panel discussions,
Ioan Gherhes, President of the National Agency for Environmental
Protection, Romania, discussed his country’s experience in creating
innovative solutions for ESM of e-waste, including projects developed in
partnership with other EU countries.

Hirokazu Yoshikawa presented on the
role that the non-ferrous metal industry plays in the collection and
recycling of e-waste, and said that recycling of some e-waste, including
personal computers and washing machines is mandatory in Japan.

Underscoring strict regulation of
transboundary movement of e-waste, Sorumunen encouraged flexible
transitional arrangements for developing countries, such as promoting
shipment of e-waste to developed countries with existing recycling
capacity.

SOUTH AFRICA urged developed
countries to reduce e-waste hazards and promote principles of duty of
care and producer responsibility. SUDAN emphasized the role of
manufacturers in reducing e-waste and proposed establishing a mechanism
to restrict export of electronic goods with less than half their
remaining useful life cycle.

THAILAND and IPEN supported a
declaration on e-waste, with THAILAND proposing that it include:
reducing waste at its source; extended producer responsibility; and
public-private partnerships.

On management of e-waste, the UK
recommended: a life cycle approach from product design onwards; a robust
legal framework providing clarity on the definition of waste; clear
communication and awareness-raising of ESM requirements; and
implementation and enforcement. The CZECH REPUBLIC spoke of national
successes in e-waste take-back. SWITZERLAND, supported by the US,
proposed encouraging multistakeholder cooperation and responsibility. He
also supported an international e-waste awareness-raising campaign.
CHINA highlighted his country’s actions on e-waste control and
activities carried out by the South Asia BCRCC.

The US requested panel comments on
whether a single approach, such as a ban on the transboundary movement
of electronic materials and wastes, would impact the ability to achieve
environmentally sound and sustainable solutions. BAN said the way to
tackle e-waste is by creating deadlines for non-toxic equipment use and
recognizing that trafficking e-waste from rich to poor countries is a
disincentive for green design.

On illegal traffic, the REPUBLIC OF
KOREA noted that transboundary movement of used electronics should be
allowed only when importing countries have available technology for
recycling and reuse. KENYA requested the implementation of measures that
at a minimum include guidelines on the transboundary movement of
electronic equipment.

Mï¿½kelï¿½ stressed the need to reward
businesses undertaking proactive activities on e-waste and to take
activities upstream. Yoshikawa proposed the Basel Secretariat establish
a system to certify recycling facilities and KUWAIT stressed the need
for national legislation on e-waste. Najam noted the focus on the role
of large businesses and urged delegates to also consider innovative
incentives for small businesses to ensure poor and vulnerable
individuals have access to recycling incentives. Hieronymi offered the
possibility of developing simple recycling technologies that can be
taken up by the informal sector. COLOMBIA noted the need to also focus
on other hazardous wastes, including insecticides.

NIGERIA discussed the need for
cooperation with the Bamako Convention and asked which steps the Basel
Convention Secretariat was taking. Basel Convention Executive Secretary
Kuwabara-Yamamoto pointed to the Secretariatï¿½s assistance in preparation
of Bamako COP1, and possibilities for back-to-back COPs, common
reporting, common use and development of
BCRCCs technical guidelines.

Forum Chair Steiner provided a
summary of the key issues emerging from the discussion and announced
that a proposal for a declaration on e-waste would be available Friday,
1 December.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS
ADOPTED BY COP7: Report on contact group and informal consultations:COW heard progress reports from the budget contact group and
informal consultations on ship dismantling. On the MPPI, Facilitator
Barry Reville (Australia), tabled the provisional decision, explained it
is without prejudice to national legislation, and will be forwarded to
OEWG for review and finalization, and encouraged parties to participate
in the process. COW agreed to the decision with a minor textual
amendment. The EU asked COW to note the guidelines are non-binding and
stressed aligning the definition of e-waste with EC law and Basel
Convention definitions.

E-waste: COW Chair Maquieira
asked delegates to informally consult on the draft declaration late into
the evening and report back to COW on Friday, 1 December.

Strategic Plan for the
Implementation of the Convention to 2010: Partnership Programme:
COW agreed to the decision on the Basel Convention Partnership Programme
(UNEP/CHW.8/CRP.12) with minor amendments.

International cooperation and
synergies: COW considered, and agreed to, the draft decision on
cooperation and synergies (UNEP/CHW.8/CRP.8) with minor amendments.
Finland announced its intention to host the ad hoc joint working
group meeting. COW also agreed to mandate the Secretariat to strengthen
coordination with the chemical-related convention secretariats.

Legal matters: COW agreed to
the decision on designation of competent authorities and focal points
(UNEP/CHW.8/14) without amendment.

OEWG work programme:
Switzerland introduced the draft 2007-2008 OEWG work programme
(UNEP/CHW.8/11) to which delegates deferred their decision pending
finalization of budget discussions.

CONTACT GROUP

BUDGET: Delegates, chaired by
Anne Daniel (Canada), continued debating, line-by-line, the revised
proposal to the biennium programme and budget, and identified possible
cost reductions, including removing a number of Secretariatï¿½s permanent
staff, decreasing traveling costs, and holding back-to-back meetings.

The group also continued debating
the EU proposed draft decision on resource mobilization and sustainable
financing, and addressed outstanding issues, including: language on
recalling COP7 report in which developed countries were invited to
increase substantially their contribution to the Convention Technical
and Cooperation Trust Fund; and encouraging donors, parties and
non-parties to ï¿½substantially increaseï¿½ voluntary contributions to such
Fund.

INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS

SHIP DISMANTLING: Delegates
discussed at length the draft decision on the ï¿½ship recycling
conventionï¿½ and agreed to forward it to COW recommending the COP,
inter alia, to: issue an invitation to the IMO to incorporate clear
responsibilities taking into account current capacities and common but
differentiated responsibilities; request the Secretariat to follow-up on
the development of the draft convention; invite parties to provide
comments on issues such as roles and responsibilities in the draft
convention; have the issue addressed by OEWG and forward OEWG report to
IMO. Delegates continued deliberating late into the night on the issue
of abandonment of ships.

IN THE BREEZEWAYS

While the high-level segment
convened to deal with the ever-growing amounts of e-waste, some
delegates commented that the problem could be more effectively addressed
by focusing future efforts and discussions on reduction of hazardous
waste generation, including the elimination of toxic components in
electronics. Given that a number of NGOs have drawn public attention to
e-waste, some delegates were surprised to see that NGOs were not given
equal space as industry representatives in the high-level segment.

This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin ï¿½
<enb@iisd.org> is written and edited by Karen Alvarenga, Ph.D., Asheline Appleton, Melanie Ashton, Robynne Boyd, Leonie Gordon and Nicole Schabus. The Digital Editor is Diego Noguera. The Editor is Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D.
<pam@iisd.org>
and the Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James ï¿½Kimoï¿½ Goree VI
<kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donors of the
Bulletin are the Government of the United States of America (through the Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs), the Government of Canada (through CIDA), the United Kingdom (through the Department for International Development - DFID), the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of Germany (through the German Federal Ministry of Environment - BMU, and the German Federal Ministry of Development Cooperation - BMZ), the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the European Commission (DG-ENV) and the Italian Ministry for the Environment and Territory General Directorate for Nature Protection. General Support for the
Bulletin during 2006 is provided by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), the Government of Australia, the Austrian Federal Ministry for the Environment, the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES) and the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (through the Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute - GISPRI). Funding for translation of the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin into French has been provided by the International Organization of the Francophonie (IOF) and the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Funding for the translation of the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin into Spanish has been provided by the Ministry of Environment of Spain. The opinions expressed in the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the
Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>,
+1-646-536-7556 or 212 East 47th St. #21F, New York, NY 10017, USA. The ENB Team at the COP8 to the Basel Convention can be contacted by e-mail at
<karen@iisd.org>.